4 ms·

The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial. For example, the public works department is not allowed to go park a t

by amalcon 17y ago

The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial. For example, the public works department is not allowed to go park a truck in front of your driveway, making it useless. Is the phone company allowed to place a filter on your line, so that you don't get DSL? Is the authors' guild allowed to place guards outside the public library to keep you out? Is the post office allowed to stop checking your mailbox? Note that, if you're in the U.S, all these infrastructures were paid for by your tax dollars. The only difference is that the status quo is different. It's a purely historical artifact that the phone company has control over your phone line. Should we really be deciding who should control which pieces of infrastructure by looking at historical artifacts? Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions.

mseebach 17y ago
> The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial. Not at all. It may not apply to this situation (that Finland politically decides to provide a service doesn't mean it makes sense to call it a right), but there's a very clear distinction between positive and negative rights. Positive right: The right to a free education. In order to provide that for a certain person, certain other persons have to pay for that. If they don't, they'll have to be forced to, otherwise it couldn't really be called a right. Negative right: Freedom of expression. No-one is allowed to keep you away from expressing yourself. On the other hand, no-one is required to help you express yourself -- that would be a positive right. > Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions. Agreed. I think it's a bad idea to spend other peoples money on providing 100 mbit internet connections to someone who's very voluntarily chosen to live as far away from human civilization as possible. Just like a bigger library in a bigger town is better than a weekly visit by the bookmobile, there's a difference between living in the city and in a rural area -- one that's also included in the cost of living.
- amalcon 17y ago
  Your examples are interesting, because it's plausible that expressing oneself is impossible without a certain level of education. It's certainly a requirement to express oneself on a global scale. Is a "negative" right (such as free expression) really a "negative" right if it requires something that cannot be guaranteed save by a positive right? The right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial (a common example of a "negative" right) likewise requires legal representation, provided that there are crimes that have that punishment. Legal representation cannot be guaranteed save by a "positive" right. Does this make the right to not be imprisoned a "positive" right? The bottom line is that, if you're going to divide rights into "positive" and "negative" rights, you need to choose a place to draw that line. I prefer to simply not draw that line, and assess the costs and benefits of a particular proposition on their own merits. Adding superfluous labels almost never helps. For example, it's possible that guaranteeing such a plentiful information source as the internet to the citizens of a nation could boost its economy significantly. In this way, its citizens could actually have more money than without it. This is similar to one argument for the American interstate highway system. This is by no means guaranteed, but it is a factor one should consider in evaluating the proposed law.
  - mseebach 17y ago
    The ability to express yourself in a certain way isn't a right. Freedom of speech is all too often confused with a right to be heard. It has nothing to do with that. The right to a fair trial and the associated rights are "weird" because they're concerned with what the government has to do in order to get to violate pretty much all your rights. I'm not a legal scholar, but I think these rights can be classified as legal rights. I think it's more relevant than ever to be mindful of positive and negative rights -- politicians in western Europe and northern America are very concerned with labelling their own policies as rights when all too often it's merely an excuse to not arguing properly for an idea -- pure newspeak. Take the Finnish here, this actually is a tax on people living in cities to pay for people living in rural areas. But that doesn't sell as well as bestowing a right on people.
  - mrkurt 17y ago
    That's kind of a leap, and an obfuscation of a relatively straightforward concept. A "freedom of speech" right doesn't give me anything I don't already have. That is, I can already speak, and say basically anything I want. It just so happens to be codified in US law. You'll note that it says nothing about a freedom to speak at a high level, a freedom to persuade, or even a freedom to have people listen. The "right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial" is a negative right (if you're suspected of a crime, we will imprison you) with limitations (but you'll get a fair trial). The right to a fair trial is not a positive right, it's a limit on a negative right. You can think of negative rights as restricting natural rights. There's no natural barrier to me taking a steaming shit on the sidewalk in front of the white house. There are negative rights, however, that restrict my ability to do that. Positive rights provide you with something you don't already have. A right to health care, for instance, will provide me with access to medicine, doctors, and other services I might otherwise have to go out and find on my own. Negative rights generally have more obvious consequences (and repercussions) than positive rights, which is why I and many others like to make this distinction.

by amalcon 17y ago

mseebach 17y ago

> The distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" rights is wholly artificial. Not at all. It may not apply to this situation (that Finland politically decides to provide a service doesn't mean it makes sense to call it a right), but there's a very clear distinction between positive and negative rights. Positive right: The right to a free education. In order to provide that for a certain person, certain other persons have to pay for that. If they don't, they'll have to be forced to, otherwise it couldn't really be called a right. Negative right: Freedom of expression. No-one is allowed to keep you away from expressing yourself. On the other hand, no-one is required to help you express yourself -- that would be a positive right. > Now, none of this stops us from debating the merits of this particular infrastructure project. In this case, we should probably compare it to a library system or post office, as it serves similar functions. Agreed. I think it's a bad idea to spend other peoples money on providing 100 mbit internet connections to someone who's very voluntarily chosen to live as far away from human civilization as possible. Just like a bigger library in a bigger town is better than a weekly visit by the bookmobile, there's a difference between living in the city and in a rural area -- one that's also included in the cost of living.

amalcon 17y ago
Your examples are interesting, because it's plausible that expressing oneself is impossible without a certain level of education. It's certainly a requirement to express oneself on a global scale. Is a "negative" right (such as free expression) really a "negative" right if it requires something that cannot be guaranteed save by a positive right? The right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial (a common example of a "negative" right) likewise requires legal representation, provided that there are crimes that have that punishment. Legal representation cannot be guaranteed save by a "positive" right. Does this make the right to not be imprisoned a "positive" right? The bottom line is that, if you're going to divide rights into "positive" and "negative" rights, you need to choose a place to draw that line. I prefer to simply not draw that line, and assess the costs and benefits of a particular proposition on their own merits. Adding superfluous labels almost never helps. For example, it's possible that guaranteeing such a plentiful information source as the internet to the citizens of a nation could boost its economy significantly. In this way, its citizens could actually have more money than without it. This is similar to one argument for the American interstate highway system. This is by no means guaranteed, but it is a factor one should consider in evaluating the proposed law.
- mseebach 17y ago
  The ability to express yourself in a certain way isn't a right. Freedom of speech is all too often confused with a right to be heard. It has nothing to do with that. The right to a fair trial and the associated rights are "weird" because they're concerned with what the government has to do in order to get to violate pretty much all your rights. I'm not a legal scholar, but I think these rights can be classified as legal rights. I think it's more relevant than ever to be mindful of positive and negative rights -- politicians in western Europe and northern America are very concerned with labelling their own policies as rights when all too often it's merely an excuse to not arguing properly for an idea -- pure newspeak. Take the Finnish here, this actually is a tax on people living in cities to pay for people living in rural areas. But that doesn't sell as well as bestowing a right on people.
- mrkurt 17y ago
  That's kind of a leap, and an obfuscation of a relatively straightforward concept. A "freedom of speech" right doesn't give me anything I don't already have. That is, I can already speak, and say basically anything I want. It just so happens to be codified in US law. You'll note that it says nothing about a freedom to speak at a high level, a freedom to persuade, or even a freedom to have people listen. The "right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial" is a negative right (if you're suspected of a crime, we will imprison you) with limitations (but you'll get a fair trial). The right to a fair trial is not a positive right, it's a limit on a negative right. You can think of negative rights as restricting natural rights. There's no natural barrier to me taking a steaming shit on the sidewalk in front of the white house. There are negative rights, however, that restrict my ability to do that. Positive rights provide you with something you don't already have. A right to health care, for instance, will provide me with access to medicine, doctors, and other services I might otherwise have to go out and find on my own. Negative rights generally have more obvious consequences (and repercussions) than positive rights, which is why I and many others like to make this distinction.